25 June 2025 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition of Kishan Kumar & Another v/s Mohd. Yunus filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), upholding a lower court's judgment that allowed the eviction of tenants from a property in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The petitioners had challenged the eviction order, citing various grounds including disputed ownership, non-joinder of necessary parties, and lack of bona fide need by the landlord.

The case revolves around property bearing no. 2107 (old), 1468 (new), Ward no. XIV, Gali Chulhe Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi 110 006. The tenanted premises, a single room, was initially occupied by the petitioners' father, Sh. Mangat Ram, in 1970. The current respondent acquired sole ownership of the premises in November 2010.

Background of the Dispute:

The respondent filed an eviction petition on December 28, 2023, under Section 4(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, seeking possession of the property for the bona fide requirement of his elder son's wedding. The petitioners, sons of the deceased tenant, received summons on February 2, 2024, and subsequently filed an application for leave to defend, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on January 27, 2025, leading to the impugned eviction judgment.

Petitioners' Contentions:

The petitioners raised several arguments against the eviction order:

• Bona Fide Need: They contended that the eviction petition was a pretext for the elder son's marriage, noting that similar eviction orders had been passed against other tenants in the building on the same date. They argued that the stated need for a minimum of six rooms would not be satisfied even after evicting all four tenants, implying a lack of genuine bona fide need.
• Non-Joinder of Parties: The petitioners asserted that the eviction petition was void ab initio because the respondent failed to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, including their mother (the widow of Sh. Mangat Ram) and five sisters, who also reside in the tenanted premises.
• Ownership Dispute: They challenged the respondent's ownership, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industry Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which held that property transfers through General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, or Wills are not legally valid. They also highlighted that the respondent had not demanded rent or provided proof of ownership between 2010 and 2022, suggesting the need for evidence to establish ownership.
• No Prior Demand Notice: The petitioners argued that a demand notice for arrears of rent is a condition precedent for filing an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent, which was absent in this case.
• Mechanical Judgment: They claimed the impugned judgment was passed mechanically, evidenced by its incorrect reference to the tenanted premises as a "shop" rather than a "residential room with kitchen and common bathroom."
• Limitation: Relying on Manindra Land & Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, they argued that the respondent's delay in demanding rent from 2010 to 2022 should lead to the setting aside of the judgment.
• Lack of Notice of Title Acquisition: Citing Anshu Goyal v. Vijender Kumar Rohtagi, they stressed that a new landlord must provide notice with supporting documents of title acquisition before demanding rent.

Respondent's Rebuttal:

The respondent countered the petitioners' submissions by asserting the validity of the Impugned Judgment:

• Validity of Transfer and Attornment: Relying on Ambika Prasad v. Mohd. Alam & Anr., the respondent argued that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transferee of a lessor's rights steps into the shoes of the lessor, and attornment by the tenant is not necessary for the transfer to take effect. Thus, the respondent, having acquired the premises with subsisting tenancy, was entitled to file the eviction petition.
• Non-Joinder of Legal Heirs: Citing Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain & Anr., the respondent contended that when an original tenant dies, legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. It is not mandatory for the landlord to implead all legal heirs; impleading those in occupation of the property is sufficient, and an eviction petition against one joint tenant is binding on all.
• Estoppel from Denying Landlord's Title: The respondent, referring to Anita Jain v. Parveen Kumar Jain, highlighted the settled law that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, however defective, especially when the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord inducted the predecessor-in-interest of the tenant.
• Bona Fide Need and Suitability: The respondent maintained that the bona fide requirement for his son's wedding was established, and the petitioners could not object to the eviction on the grounds of suitability of the premises.

Court's Analysis and Findings:

The Delhi High Court, after considering both sides, found no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment. The Court's key findings included:

• Tenant's Right to Challenge Ownership: The Court reiterated that a tenant has no right to challenge the landlord's ownership, relying on precedents such as Anita Jain (supra). The petitioners' averment of non-payment of rent and denial of landlord-tenant relationship was deemed untenable.
• Limitation and Demand Notice: The Court dismissed the ground of limitation and delay in issuing a demand notice for rent, citing the decision in Ambika Prasad (supra), which clarifies that attornment by a tenant is not required for a transfer of landlord's rights to take effect.
• Non-Joinder of Legal Heirs: The Court found the ground of non-joinder of the petitioners' mother and sisters untenable, aligning with the principle laid down in Suresh Kumar Kohli (supra) that impleading occupying legal heirs is sufficient.
• Bona Fide Need and Suitability: The Court rejected the petitioners' objection regarding the sufficiency of rooms or the suitability of the premises, affirming the principle from Anita Jain (supra) that tenants cannot dictate the landlord's choice of accommodation to satisfy their bona fide need.
• Mechanical Judgment Claim: The Court implicitly dismissed the claim of a "mechanical judgment" by finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision, despite the petitioners' point about the description of the premises.

Conclusion:

Based on its analysis, the Delhi High Court concluded that there was no infirmity with the Impugned Judgment passed by the Court of ARC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958